Have you seen this woman?

Her name is Dr. Sally Moore. She seems to have gone quiet. Has anyone heard from her? Where is she? Does anyone out there know?

She was one of the New York Time's "wired and shrewd" ; a group of liberals, socialists and Muslim Brotherhood members all holding each other's hands to oust Hosni Mubarak from leadership and usher in a new Egyptian government. She was so optimistic about events in Tahrir square.

“I like the Brotherhood most, and they like me,” said Sally Moore, a 32-year-old psychiatrist, a Coptic Christian and an avowed leftist and feminist of mixed Irish-Egyptian roots. “They always have a hidden agenda, we know, and you never know when power comes how they will behave. But they are very good with organizing, they are calling for a civil state just like everyone else, so let them have a political party just like everyone else — they will not win more than 10 percent, I think.”

I'm not the only one looking for her. Where did she go? I'm a fairly savvy internet searcher- I'm even using Google, since Google's Wael Ghonim seems to have helped the revolution along- but there aren't any links to her more recent than Feb 2011.

I really want to ask her about the new Islamist parliament (70% Islamist!), because the Brotherhood has done far, far better than Sally thought possible and I'm curious as to why she thought they'd be more unpopular.

I'm also very curious as to her take on the violence against Coptic Christians. There's this warm and fuzzy story from Al-Arabiya, but then again, it's reported by some human rights groups that 100,000 Copts may have left Egypt after the revolution fearing discrimination.

Maybe Sally was lucky enough to know some genuinely sweet Muslim Brothers. Maybe all is well there. I sure would like for someone to find her and get her perspective on the one-year anniversary of that Times' article.

Spooky Quadrotors will play their own theme music as they work. That's just...great.

Obama called to apologize to an activist representing herself as a slut.

And no, it wasn't Hannah Giles.

It looks like Georgetown "co-ed" Sandra Fluke isn't a 23-year old law student with an expensive contraceptive habit after all. And no one told you that she was a past president of "Law Students for reproductive Justice". But the Democrats got to play her as a victim card on the Hill recently because, well, that's how Democrats roll.

Jammie Wearing Fool says:
For me the interesting part of the story is the ever-evolving “coed”. I put that in quotes because in the beginning she was described as a Georgetown law student. It was then revealed that prior to attending Georgetown she was an active women’s right advocate. In one of her first interviews she is quoted as talking about how she reviewed Georgetown’s insurance policy prior to committing to attend, and seeing that it didn’t cover contraceptive services, she decided to attend with the express purpose of battling this policy. During this time, she was described as a 23-year-old coed. Magically, at the same time Congress is debating the forced coverage of contraception, she appears and is even brought to Capitol Hill to testify. This morning, in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show, it was revealed that she is 30 years old, NOT the 23 that had been reported all along.

In other words, folks, you are being played. She has been an activist all along and the Dems were just waiting for the appropriate time to play her.


Here is some background.

Haven't we had enough of this phony hardcore-activist testimony? When are we going to get representatives even a little bit interested in vetting witnesses?

You know what? Rush was right. She IS a slut. Not because of her sexual proclivities, which may be as phony as her testimony, but because she's eager to sell out your liberties and your religious freedoms to make half of us pay for the other half's sexual activities.

Andrew Breitbart is dead. (Long live Andrew Breitbart.)

I never had the privilege of meeting Andrew Breitbart in person, or interacting with him in any way. I've been a consumer of his news site for a little over three years now and have grown to not just appreciate what he has built at Breitbart.com, but to need it. I believe that a fair number of Americans have also come to expect and demand the kind of Merry Prankster-ish journalism served up by Andrew and his team- maybe a little outrageous, but always using the Left's tactics to expose them and their agendas.

I am certain that Andrew had created a new product sorely needed- one that would drive the "mainstream" news machines into covering stories they really would rather not have to, one that would give young aspiring journalists an outlet for their stories, and one that would take the aggregate news genre to a different level.

Without Breitbart.com, would we have accepted the old newsmedia's insistence that Emanuel Cleaver and John Lewis were spit on or had epithets screamed at them when they taunted angry Americans with forced "Affordable Care Acts" during the summer of 2010? It was Breitbart who offered a $100,000 reward for audio or video proof of the spitting allegation, to be paid to the United Negro College fund. To this day, that reward sits unclaimed, despite the preponderance of AV equipment present that day and in that place, some of it carried by the legislators themselves, prepared to document the anticipated responses to their baiting- responses which never came.

Without Breitbart, would we have ever seen the stark contrasts between the TEA party and their detractors? Would we have ever seen the disappointing mounds of garbage and the thousands of little flags abandoned on the floor of Invesco Stadium once Obama had left the stage and the Greek tragedy's opening act had closed? Would we have seen the pristine grounds of the National Mall as tens of thousands departed after Glen Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in late August, or been able to contrast it to the miniature landfills piled up at the WWII memorial when the Left's "One Nation" rally descended on D.C. just over one month later?

Where would James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles have gotten the same level of exposure for their videos of ACORN workers teaching sex workers how to commit fraud?
Where would Lila Rose have posted her investigation showing Planned Parenthood's inability to provide mammograms, or contact a parent when a pregnant unable-to-legally-consent daughter said the father was quite a bit older?

Would we have ever learned that Shirley Sherrod was just a woman that could not competently do the job she was paid to do, and serve a man who needed help from her department? Would we have ever heard the uplifting tale of how she went from being a closed-minded, bitter racist to a more open-minded class-warfare specialist? Would we have ever seen how easy it is to get a bunch of taxpayer money in your own pocket for saying you "attempted to farm" when your potted tomato plants died from lack of nutrients? I doubt it.

Who else but Andrew Breitbart could rollerblade around an angry mob of anti-capitalists, taunt them, and then invite them all to a post-protest meal at the nearby Applebee's restaurant chain? Andrew didn't shy away from controversy or hate-filled raging mobs, he waded into them as he waded happily into life, engaging cohorts and enemies with the same friendly and determined demeanor.

I and others who never met Andrew in person feel that we have lost a dear friend too soon. We ache on behalf of his wife and young children. Generally, conservatives and other decent folk mourn the early end of a bright and productive personality while most "Progressives" seem to celebrate this death with hateful comments and baseless tu quoque arguments on message boards. A few wags encourage other conservatives to re-Tweet the nasty remarks, saying it would be in Andy's spirit. They're not entirely wrong.

Andrew's last book "Righteous Indignation" told his readers that he was fueled by love of the engagement and of real fairness, not by hatred. And he was as assured of his righteousness as anyone who manages to be true to himself and honest to those with whom he deals because it is the right and decent thing to do.

"I love my job. I love fighting for what I believe in. I love having fun while doing it."

"At the end of the day, I can look at myself in the mirror, and I sleep very well at night."

Good night, Andrew. Well done!

Thought for the day:Root Cause of Why Statists Crave Power

Statists take a dim view of humanity, likely due to the fact that they don't see people as children of God. Therefore they feel that people must be ruled, and legislated into "good behavior", and punished when they resist the control exerted by a State over their lives and fortunes.

Since the Statist does not acknowledge God as the grantor of natural rights, or the Creator of Man, the perceived vacuum of power must be filled- by the Statist, of course. The Statist perceives that he is better educated, more intelligent, more perceptive, less "superstitious" and better qualified overall to lead the God-fearing savages into Progress. He will force them if necessary. And somehow it is always "necessary" for "the greater good" or "for the children".

Something's always bottoming out when obama is around...

Osama bin Laden Dies, Gets 72 Versions

I know there's reportedly 25 minutes of video blackout, but with after-action reports and debriefings provided by the people who were there to the people who weren't there, how is it possible that the slick-messaging experts on Team Obama can't decide what it is that happened?

From The Bookworm room:

Usually when governments use misinformation, they use it to make themselves look good. The Obama Administration gets points for originality, insofar as it’s been using disinformation and misinformation to make itself look arbitrary, unlawful, helpless and stupid. Here’s jj’s great summary:
Okay, what do we have here:
1) There was a firefight.
2) There was no firefight.
3) Bin Laden was “resisting.”
4) Bin Laden wasn’t armed. (Makes the concept of “resisting” interesting.)
[4.a) And the newest one: the SEALS thought bin Laden was reaching for a weapon.]
5) He used his wife as a shield.
6) His wife was killed too.
7) He didn’t use his wife as a shield. She ran at a SEAL who shot her in the leg, but she’s fine.
8 ) Some other woman — the maid? — was used as a shield. By somebody. Downstairs.
9) That other woman — downstairs — was killed.
10) Maybe not. She was killed unless she wasn’t — and who was she, anyway?
11) Bin Laden’s son was killed.
12) Unless it was some other guy.
13) Bin Laden’s daughter saw him get killed. She’s undoubtedly traumatized, poor dear.
14) They were going to capture Bin Laden until the problem with the helicopter, which was:
A) It had mechanical trouble
B) It did a hard landing
C) It crashed
D) It clipped a wall with a tail rotor, effectively a crash
15.) They were never going to try to capture him; it was always a kill mission.
16.) No, it wasn’t.
17) The chopper blew up.
18) The SEALs blew it up.
19.) Panetta said yesterday the world needed proof and the photo would be released.
20.) Obama said today in an interview he taped with Steve Kroft for “60 Minutes” to be broadcast Sunday that it won’t be released. It’s too gruesome, would offend Muslim sensibilities (something he worries about a lot — I personally do not give a warm fart on a wet Wednesday about Muslim sensibilities), and how would Americans feel if Muslims released pictures of dead Americans?
21.) Kroft — who’s not a total idiot — pointed out that ever since “Black Hawk Down” days, Muslims have been doing precisely that, filming American bodies being dragged through the streets, filming Daniel Pearl’s head being cut off, filming any and everything.
22) Obama gets pissed at CBS, the tape gets cleaned up, that question disappears. (Inside info.)23.) We got a “treasure trove” of stuff from hard drives, etc.
24.) There were no phone lines, and no internet access at the “mansion,” they didn’t even have TV — what “treasure trove?”
25.) There is obviously in the pictures of the place a large satellite dish. I guess they used it for making salads.
26.) And now, just today: apparently the idea was to capture him, but only if he was naked. There was a suspicion he might be wearing a suicide bomber type explosive vest, or belt. So if he’s not naked and you can’t see if he has a vest on or not – shoot him.

The idiot Carney — they actually managed to find someone who makes Gibbs look good — is currently twisting himself into knots trying to explain why the photograph that the whole world was expecting isn’t going to be released. (Obviously the thing to do is get Trump on the case, he’ll force Obama to release it.)

The military did great, the administration — or whatever that bunch is, kind of like “The Little Rascals” — have managed to turn it into spaghetti. The story has changed so many times in the course of a mere three days it’s a joke — the world would be better off if Panetta had left the little shitwit on the golf course.